Darwin saw the cell as a blob of protoplasm. If he had seen these videos I believe he would have been keen enough to dismiss evolution as did Alfred Wallace.

Well that's just plain wrong. Schneider and Flemming were producing very detailed drawings of cells, complete with chromosomes in the 1870's-80's. Darwin himself, in 1882, published in the Journal of the Linnean Society London about chloroplasts. They obviously didn't know as much as we do, but no-one thought there were just 'blobs of protoplasm', least of all Darwin. People have known cells were very complex for well over a century.

Easily? Do you really believe that? There is nothing easy about the function of the cell. There are functions within the cell that scientists don't understand. How can you show that a functional structure is reducible when it function is not fully understood? You're stepping way out of science.

---

The completely inadequate argument by evolutionists against IC is like believing the space shuttle is reducible too because its door handle can be used as a paper weight and the clip board in the cockpit can be used as a tie clip.

Somebody should remind the IDiots that Behe's "Irreducible Complexity disproves evolution" brain fart was examined and rejected by the scientific community over a decade ago. None of the top ID bigwigs use it any more. IC systems can and do arise through naturally occurring evolutionary processes.

I think so. Not only the structures but all the levels of synronization, coordination, and vast communication networks within the cell. It's an integrated whole on a level that humans can't even conceive of duplicating. It makes the space shuttle look like a wooden cart being pulled out of a cave.

They obviously didn't know as much as we do, but no-one thought there were just 'blobs of protoplasm'

From:

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_02.html

Darwin had proposed that the first cell could easily have formed "in some warm little pond."238 One of Darwin's supporters, the German biologist Ernst Haeckel, examined under the microscope a mixture of mud removed from the sea bed by a research ship and claimed that this was a nonliving substance that turned into a living one. This so-called "mud that comes to life," known as Bathybius haeckelii ("Haeckel's mud from the depths"), is an indication of just how simple a thing life was thought to be by the founders of the theory of evolution.

You were certainly wrong to suppose that Darwin believed this to be the case.

You are juxtaposing a very short-lived claim made by Huxley with the beliefs of Darwin (well, actually you are just quoting from a website which is doing it for you).

For one thing, the reference to life beginning "in some warm little pond" makes no reference to how complex that life would have to be, let alone how complicate cells are NOW (remember, given evolution, cells themselves have become progressively MORE complicated over time. Cells now are more complex than the first cells).

For another, this Bathybius haeckelii was not a logical extension of the theory of evolution or an accurate representation of the beliefs of any 'Darwinist' other than Huxley himself. Instead it was a conclusion drawn (rashly, as it turned out) from a discovery Huxley made from mud samples he collected. He imagined he had discovered a new organic substance of primordial matter. But when his 'discovery' turned out to be nothing more than the result of precipitation, he admitted his mistake.

If you wanted to pull me up on my wording that 'NO-ONE thought [cells] were just blobs of protoplasm' then fine, I suppose I'll have to give you that. I cannot speak for the beliefs of, for example, the insane, very young children, the scientifically uneducated lay people, etc. My point however was that it was not the generally-accepted scientific belief of the time, and it certainly was not Darwin's belief.

So Neal's comment that "Darwin saw the cell as a blob of protoplasm. If he had seen these videos I believe he would have been keen enough to dismiss evolution" is indeed nonsense.

T. Cook, I'm not suggesting a value 'D', but rather looking at the pattern over time with many generations. Unbounded change over a large number of generations would clearly show the mean continuing to move past the previous range again and again (off the page, again and again so to speak).

Darwin's finches show an oscillation back and forth. A speciation event here is defined by mating preferences based on bird song and beak size, but not strict interfertility. We observe a pattern of diverging and merging. Different "species" of finches mating to form successful hybrids after previously diverging into different "species".

Plotting it, you would see a slight divergence from the previous mean and then an oscillation back with a slight merging.

Artifical and natural selection show nothing more than a radiation of genetic variety that is bounded (think dogs, cats, cattle, finches, peppered moths, e-coli. A slight divergence and then merging, again, and again. The fossil record show abrupt appearance of species followed by slight radiation of variation.

Evolutionists extrapolate about what "could" happen, but what we never observe is it actually happening. That's why I say that not a single empirical example of evolution exists in the history of science.

A large flat field can't be extrapolated as evidence for a flat earth unless you lack a horizon (unbounded).

A large flat field can't be extrapolated as evidence for a flat earth unless you lack a horizon (unbounded).

Tedford the idiot sure love that stupid and inappropriate analogy. It's his new security blanket.

Hey idiot - a flat piece of land is a physical object. It's can't be extrapolated over time. Evolution is an empirically observed process. It's effects can be extrapolated back through time, and such earlier effects can be inferred from the evidence the process left behind.

It's no different that the process of plate tectonic movement, or erosion caused by a flowing river. Science can empirically measure plate movement, can observe colliding plates causing the Himalaya mountains to rise a few cm a year and extrapolate back to explain the mountains' formation. Science can empirically observe the Colorado river still cutting into the Grand Canyon and extrapolate back to explain the whole canyon's formation.

No one is screaming that geologists are frauds who need to build a new Mt. Everest or a new Grand Canyon in the lab to demonstrate the claims.

Seriously? We've had a few mice in our house (before we had cats), so I'm familar with these criters to some degree.

First, mice will chew on nearly anything, we had to replace our microwave oven because they chewed the insulation off the electrical cord. Other stuff too, like house insulation, wood, paper, foam, etc. So mice eating meat is not at all surprising. They sampled some at our house. The diet in meat would probably explain their increased size.

Second, they are very adaptable and smart. They learn the traps and avoid them. That's why I'd recommend the careful use of Dcon (or cats).

This is certainly not unbounded change, but adaption to a rich meat diet. They probably reached this size within just a few generations and the big boys took over the island.

Mastiff to Chihuahua dogs. Even humans. Species size can easily vary this much. This is not uncommon and has nothing to do with evolution. Certainly not unbounded change.

Selective breeding of the biggest mice on the island and a continued diet rich in meat may yield a somewhat larger mouse in proportion to the population, but do you really expect their size to be unbounded?

Plotting the data over time would probably show a quick increase in size over time from the original island arrivals and then a leveling off in size within a stable range. If the vast supply of rich meat were to begin to taper off, expect their size to oscillate back to smaller size mice.No evolution here.

I agree with troy. You have yet to specify how to determine any specific bound. It leaves you plenty of room to always move the goalposts. My point is that you have a hunch that there is some point beyond which change is impossible. My question is how do you know this? How can you identify this point for any particular organism (make predictions)?

What if the source of meat changed? The temperature changed? A new predator found the island? A Tsunami wiped out 90% of the population? Random mutations occur? Rinse and repeat for thousands of years. Neal you are thinking In one dimension. Changing just one variable. OT, we have had good success with one from Home Depot which electrocutes the varmint

Evolutionists extrapolate about what "could" happen, but what we never observe is it actually happening. That's why I say that not a single empirical example of evolution exists in the history of science.

If evolution was actually happening, unbounded and directional change should be easily documented. What we see is adaptive radiation from the mean that is bounded.

I think the predictive ability of my view would lead me to see that in thousands of years the mice population will still be easily identified as mice. We see what has happened with the selective breeding of dogs over thousands of years. Big dogs, little dogs, different colors, etc, but all easily identified as dogs. Certainly bounded change has been observed. Speculation can be helpful in science (or not) but it is not the same thing as empirical evidence.

Again,not a biologist.So your prediction is that no matter how much time passes mice stay mice. Ok,when is the first appearance of a modern mouse in fossils? I've found some pretty well preserved in my walls,but my house is less than a hundred years old. This could provide empirical proof to your claim.

Velikovskys, I haven't researched mouse fossils, but what we see from the fossil record does not jive with evolution.

The most glaring example of this is the abrupt appearance of 3 dozen phyla (body plans) in the Cambrian fossils and then bounded adaptive radiation following. Darwin predicted the gradual development of new body plans over eons. Nearly all body plans that have ever existed first appeared in the Cambrian. It turns Darwinism on its head.

Darwinists point to few tiny worms and sponges and a handful of precambrian fossils, but that doesn't even begin to jive with Darwins prediction of gradual development. The Cambrian Explosion was not named by creationists either. Three dozen new phyla but just a few precambrian fossils? Doesn't fit.

Velikovskys, I haven't researched mouse fossils, but what we see from the fossil record does not jive with evolution.

Feel free to give us your alternate explanation for the spatial and temporal distribution of forms in the fossil record.

The most glaring example of this is the abrupt appearance of 3 dozen phyla (body plans) in the Cambrian fossils and then bounded adaptive radiation following.

Where 'abrupt' means over 5-10 million years.

Darwin predicted the gradual development of new body plans over eons. Nearly all body plans that have ever existed first appeared in the Cambrian. It turns Darwinism on its head.

Only in Tedford-the-idiot land. All it means is that in that specific instance Darwin was wrong. That doesn't affect in the least all the other things he got right, or all the huge amount of supporting evidence that has been amassed since his time.

Darwinists point to few tiny worms and sponges and a handful of precambrian fossils, but that doesn't even begin to jive with Darwins prediction of gradual development.

So? Again, the current ToE doesn't depend on such a prediction.

The Cambrian Explosion was not named by creationists either. Three dozen new phyla but just a few precambrian fossils? Doesn't fit.

Again idiot, feel free to give us your explanation for the spatial and temporal distribution of forms in the fossil record. Any time.

I think the coolest part is that with this newly discovered spliceosome code, they are now getting an idea of how often the same protein parts are reused. So now you make one mutation, and instead of just affecting one little walker protein, you may be affecting 10 different proteins in different stages of life and in different tissues. I hope Berry makes many more of these. I've shown his DNA and RNA polymerase to many people. I didn't remember that he got his inspiration from Goodsell. I check his stuff on PDB every month... it's like a treat.

Was it "Biologists are just making this up?" In which case you'd have to actually present a case explaining why the presentation is false, or at least, unsupported.

Was it "Look how complex it all is?" (seems likely, considering bascially the only argument of ID proponents is 'complexity therefore design.') Which is nonsense because it's completely begging the question.

For the long version, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba2h9tqNYAo

Meyers could practically have been talking with Cornelius specifically in mind.

Ritchie, is there a level of complexity that could hypothetically be observed in a living organism that you would conclude could not be produced via evolution? Just hypothetical.

It seems to me that you've made up your mind that nothing could be found, even hypothetically, that would change your mind. In your mind there is absolutely nothing that could be found in nature that is even worth considering that evolution was not responsible. By default. Case closed. Right? Would you know the difference between a designed system and an evolved system if you saw it?

If you could, what would be the characteristics of this hypothetically designed system? If not, then how do you justify your current view against design?

Ritchie, is there a level of complexity that could hypothetically be observed in a living organism that you would conclude could not be produced via evolution? Just hypothetical.

Yes. And if such happened then we would look for another NATURAL mechanism which could create such complexity.

The point you seem to have missed again is that "complexity therefore design" is a fallacy, no matter how complex you discover something to be.

The nonsense coming from the ID crowd seems to be "Look, this is REALLY REALLY complex, therefore design", and when the logical fallacy of this argument is pointed out, they just ignore it and say "Oh my gosh, we've discovered new things, it's even MORE complex than we thought..."

Complexity does not imply design NO MATTER HOW COMPLEX THAT THING IS.

If you could, what would be the characteristics of this hypothetically designed system?

You are asking ME to identify the features of a designed universe? So that I can then refute that hypothesis? Sorry, the onus is on you to do that. You are the ones invoking agency and design. And if you are doing so, then you need to say exactly how you are identifying them.

I get the concept of irreducible complexity. I also see that many things PEOPLE have manufactured are indeed irreducibly complex. The problem is that we have not observed irreducible complexity in nature.

I don't know why you have this inability to challenge the perception that everything that exists must have been deliberately crafted. Has every lightning bolt been carefully crafted? Were the pebbles on every beach hand-placed by a conscious being? Were the clouds all designed?

When you study these objects in minute detail, they are all incredibly complex objects. Therefore they must have been designed!

The physical universe is pretty complex, is it designed? Or is it just life on earth?

Have you thought of the reverse of your argument? If life is designed why is it so complex? The simpler a design the more elegant it is and less prone to failure. We have two kidneys( redundant) but one heart and one liver,failure is fatal. You could eliminate whole systems if humans could use photosynthesis, instead we consume our energy thru food, complicating the whole process. Complexity speaks of constraints in the design, the Designer is has no constraints. At least that is the fine tuning argument .

Velikovskys, "You could eliminate whole systems if humans could use photosynthesis".

--

Wouldn't give us enough energy.

Why do you think that organisms are more complicated than they need to be?

Look at how complex manmade robots are that do very little compared to humans. Neither can they reproduce or self heal. Their constructed from the outside by humans bringing in components and assembling them. Look at the video again. The cell is a masterpiece of elegance.

Darwinists think God must be constrainted to be a neurotic engineer that is obsessed with being a minimalist and narrow minded effiency freak with everything else like art, beauty, and even humor being irrelevant to design.

But evolutionary tales of what would be a better design are truly laughable. They have not made their case as to poor design no matter how hard they try.

You seem to be missing the point, your Designer created energy. It does what He wills. He is not a human designer. You seem to be saying God is constrained.

So in your view God's design can be simple or complex, inefficient or efficient , beautiful or ( no link necessary,right?),natural or supernatural,the Mona Lisa or Elvis on velvet, elegant or good enough.

Velikosvskys, of course the stowaway mice were an obvious oversimplication, but bird beaks, peppered moths, e-coli and everything else that evolutionists have posted as evidence on this site is of the same quality of non-evidence.

Comparing the origin of kinesin and dynein to water eroding rocks in the Grand Canyon is ridiculous.

I've seen many cell animations over the years, but they continue to remind me of the words of King David 3000 years ago... we are fearfully and wonderfully made. The evolutionists here view it and think water erosion against rocks.

Don't you believe the source of kinesin and rocks and water are the same? That mice , sunsets, puppies, skin cancer, butterflies,birth defects,tsunamis are designed and created by the same being? Correct?

Smith might call this " green elephant problem" or the "pea pachyderm paradox". You are willing to believe in a being creating everything with no direct evidence( green elephant),while maintaining hyper skepticism towards any evidence (facts) of an alternate theory.

Neal: Smith, evolution of kinesin and dynein, just like water and rocks, right?

Hardly. Though both are intricate, beautiful and resilient. Much like rocks and water. A fine piece of granite truly is something to behold.

And yes, certainly a 3P (pea, pachyderm...) The struggle with elephants isn't their size or their colour, it is that we believe them to be something else entirely. Often this manifests as a burden of proof we place upon another, regardless of position. We become so enamored with the surface of the argument that we forget its possible depth. It is why such arguments become, as Mr. Hunter might say, so religious - each side demanding the other bend to its will without first demanding that same respect of itself.

Everyone imbibes deeply within a 3P complex. But there is a sharp difference between those who know it and those who do not.

There is a granitic dome nearby called Enchanted Rock. It is beautiful pink granite standing 400 ft above the surrounding countryside. Great place to camp and make the walk to the top in the moonlight.

Things are not "goal-oriented" by themselves, they can only be so described by an observer, and in relation to some explicit or implicit intent. And without inherent goal, there is no proper way of talking about "tuning", &c.

Thorton: "Evolutionary processes have been empirically demonstrated to produce mechanisms that are both complex and organized. So where's the problem?"

I was thinking more of OOL.

Not just complex and organized. Balanced and tuned. Adaptable and regulated. Hierarchical and logical. Goal oriented and resilient.

OK. What evidence makes you think the first organic self-replicators (however they originated) were "Balanced and tuned. Adaptable and regulated. Hierarchical and logical. Goal oriented and resilient."?

All species exhibit a larger range of adaptive variation that tends to not be fully quantified from a small population or an isolated population.

What I mean by unbounded change is the mean continuing to move past the previous ranges over time again and again, not just a burst of radiation and a stablization or oscillation back and forth from the original mean. Adaptive radiation plotted over time is like inflating a balloon. Over time, as the species is subjected to various selective pressures the data plotted in 3 dimensions would radiate out but reach an extent. Like a balloon it could be stretched to its limits by intense selective pressure, but after that... pop, extinction. The point is the balloon and the genetic change plotted over time has limits. This is what everything that is observed in nature is clearly reflecting.

Evolution would see the genetic change as a cloud that continues to radiate out, disperse and change forms over time and so on. No empirical observation of unbounded change exists.

In that case, you must surely accept ring species as demonstrations of evolution in action?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEtnyx0Yo9I

Two distinct species, unable to interbreed, yet linked by a chain of intermediaries. These species haven't oscillated around a mean, have they? They have split irrevocably and irreversibly. They have speciated. They have evolved.

You are shifting the posts. Now you're basically saying that bounded means that variation doesn't reach infinity, which corresponds to a more standard mathematical definition of bounded, but which is also trivial in the case of any natural process (possible exception black holes?)

What you are really trying to say, I'm quite sure, is that there are magic boundaries between "kinds" that cannot be traversed by evolution. But you're finding it hard to clearly define what those boundaries are. And the reason is that there is no evidence for such boundaries, nor a theoretical reason why they should exist. It's creationist hand-waving.

What I mean by unbounded change is the mean continuing to move past the previous ranges over time again and again, not just a burst of radiation and a stablization or oscillation back and forth from the original mean.

"Abstract: There are very few high-resolution studies of the fossil record from which to assess the relative frequency of gradualistic and punctuated evolution. Here I report some of the first detailed evidence of phyletic gradualism in benthic macroinvertebrates, based on a study of ~15,000 trilobites from central Wales. Over a period of about three million years, as many as eight lineages underwent a net increase in the number of pygidial ribs, a species-diagnostic character. The end members of most lineages have previously been assigned to different species and, in one case, to different genera. In view of intermediate morphologies and temporary trend reversals, however, practical taxonomic subdivision of each lineage proved impossible. The apparent success of earlier Linnean nomenclature (with its implications of discrete species) could easily have been misinterpreted as evidence of punctuation and stasis, and it is probable that detection of many other gradualistic patterns has been hindered by ready application of binominal taxonomy to fossils."

Do you have any data to show that the ring species do not interbreed because they are not interfertile under any Cirumstance. My guess is its just preference which is common.

Do you have observable evidence of a species leaving the ring? Are the ring species just subspecies?

In the case of the Ensatina salamanders, the two groups that overlap at the end of the ring do not naturally interbreed. The two populations do not experience genetic mixing, which makes them two distinct species by definition. Interfertility has nothing to do with it. Lions and tigers are interfertile, but no one claims they are one species.

Along the rest of the ring there are distinct clines - zones where only limited interbreeding and limited gene flow takes place. This is a classic case of speciation caught in the act.

Here is a good layman's overview of this ring species, and how it developed over time:

Thorton, I have to call foul on Tedford's behalf. Whithout reading the links, I know that the explanation for the ring species, depends on evolution as an explantation. However, I've never personally seen these species develop over time.

An enjoyable read, Eugen. Thanks for linking. What is more striking than the illustrations (to me) are the metaphors they create. Some of the answers to the questions they pose in will most likely go unanswered. Where many may see inefficiency via a Rube Goldberg-esque setup, others may see multiple intent or a clever way to illustrate the unseen.

I do feel that we forget the inherent symbology in the artifacts we create and the manner in which we use them.

I forgot to mention, there is something that reflects how badly anthropomorphising your view of nature is. You talk about "nano technology" and "miniaturisation", but those terms are used in relation to our human "meso scale". On what grounds can you say the ribosome is a miniaturised machine if you don't know what are the working scales of the designer?

2) the mention of FSCO/I, which is an undefined and completely meaningless buzzterm invented by Gordon E. Mullings (GEM of TKI) and not used by anyone else on the planet except him (and now you) on UD.

I'm disappointed it was barely challenged by anti ID side.

When you present it on a site that has banned virtually every scientifically knowledgeable person who ever posted there, what do you expect? If you want a real critique by real working scientists, post it on TalkRational Life Sciences BB

Ritchie said, "I get the concept of irreducible complexity. I also see that many things PEOPLE have manufactured are indeed irreducibly complex. The problem is that we have not observed irreducible complexity in nature"

--

Can you give a specific example? What criteria would you use to determine that this was irreducibly complex?

Troy "You claim that common descent is not supported by the data. So if I show you a scientific paper that concludes common descent from the data, you will be able to point out the flaws in the analysis, is that correct?"--Neal TedfordFeb 8, 2012 11:18 AM: "Yes."

and

Neal TedfordFeb 8, 2012 11:42 AM: "I'm waiting for your paper."

Been a whole week now of you posting your usual idiocy but nary a peep out of you on your analysis. Seems like you conveniently "forgot" to keep your word. What a surprise.

Troy said, "You are shifting the posts. Now you're basically saying that bounded means that variation doesn't reach infinity, which corresponds to a more standard mathematical definition of bounded, but which is also trivial in the case of any natural process (possible exception black holes?)"

--

I thought I posted a reply to this last night, but can't locate now.

--

No, it does not involve "infinity". It does not need to. I am only dealing with what is actually observed, not what evolutionists think "could happen", but never has been observed to happen.

Stowaway mice, bird beaks, peppered moths, and such do not show a pattern of unbounded directional change. Some examples show neither, some fail to be either directional or unbounded.

When looking at the larger mice and plotting this one characteristic (size) over time, the data would show a directional change over a relatively short period of time and then stasis. Mice are omnivores, so the bird meat thing is curious, but not a directional change. There is no evidence of any other kind of directional change occuring in the stowaway mice. The size has reached it's limit or is very close to it. I don't expect the mice to be running down caribou in a thousand years.

And such is how the story plays out in the real world for bird beaks, peppermoths, fruit flies and every other example of so called evolutionary change given by Darwinists. Change is never observed over time to be both unbounded and directional.

Evolutionists see the history of life as a cloud that radiates out with portions continuing to change form over time. A bear shaped cloud gradually breaks up and a portion of it changes into a whale and so on.

The fossil record does not indicate such a gradual transition of life forms, but shows single data points in time of new life forms and then bounded change of that new form.

Evolutionists can talk about implications, extrapolations and what "could happen", but the fact is that we have never observe it actually happening. Evolutionists comfort themselves with their imagined extrapolations and the assumption that the experts tell them evolutioni is a settled fact. When you peel back the onion of so called evidence, one never really gets at it. Secretly it must be frustrating for evolutionists to see the ball beginning to roll slightly up hill, but never, ever keep it rolling to seal their argument. Oh well, perhaps its over the next hill.

Comparing water erosion in the Grand Canyon to evolutionary change is a glaring admission by evolutionists that their theory is one of gradualism. Gradualism is contradicted by empirical evidence and the fossil record.

The erosion process is understood, repeatable, and the unbounded (not infinity), directional change is observable and can be plotted over time T+n...

Change in living species over time is like erosion of the Panama canal. Large battleships have rubbed the concret sides of the canal with enough pressure to cause the cement to bubble from the heat, but the changes to the canal over time and use are bounded... unless intelligent designers decide to change it.

Surely, the fossil evidence and observable evidence is screaming which analogy is more accurate.

Comparing water erosion in the Grand Canyon to evolutionary change is a glaring admission by evolutionists that their theory is one of gradualism. Gradualism is contradicted by empirical evidence and the fossil record.

Hey idiot, the erosion example was to highlight the stupidity of your "extrapolate a flat piece of land" analogy. Just like the process of evolution, the process of erosion can be extrapolated backwards and provides a consilient explanation for observed empirical data. And just like evolution, the rate of change of erosion is not fixed but varies greatly depending on environmental conditions.

The erosion process is understood, repeatable, and the unbounded (not infinity), directional change is observable and can be plotted over time T+n...

The evolution process is understood, repeatable, and the unbounded (not infinity), directional change is observable and can be plotted over time T+n.

Change in living species over time is like erosion of the Panama canal. Large battleships have rubbed the concret sides of the canal with enough pressure to cause the cement to bubble from the heat, but the changes to the canal over time and use are bounded... unless intelligent designers decide to change it.

"We didn't see it happen in real time" doesn't mean "it's impossible to happen" you idiot. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

Surely, the fossil evidence and observable evidence is screaming which analogy is more accurate.

They are screaming. They're screaming "TEDFORD IS AN IDIOT" so loudly that everyone can hear.

Neal,Apparently you have never been in the desert during a thunderstorm. The change is not gradual,huge amounts of debris is carried away in a short period.Then until the next rain, little changes. But in deference to the 3p principle, I don't think this Canal vs the Colorado is a helpful analogy. There is no qualitative difference between the erosion at the Canal or the Colorado. Man can affect the speed and direction but ultimately as the Corps of Engineers is finding out on the Mississippi ,nature is relentless and given geologic time frames will overpower the works of man. The point of using the Canyon is it demonstrates erosion is a more spectacular wayIs this your point?

The point of using the Canyon is it demonstrates erosion is a more spectacular way.

The point of the erosion / Grand Canyon analogy is to demonstrate that it's perfectly acceptable for science to extrapolate an observed process (erosion) to account for a much bigger cumulative effect (1 mile deep canyon). We don't have to see another 1 mile deep canyon carved in real time to know the history and cause of the GC that took millions of years to form.

That's why Tedford's demand to see a whole new phylum evolve in just the few hundred years science has been making observations is so stupid. We can observe the process of evolution at work in real time, and we have ample evidence that it is responsible for a much bigger cumulative effect. We don't have to see a new phylum appear in real time to know the history and cause of changes that took millions of years.

Even though Tedford is an idiot he still gets the point of the analogy. He just can't admit it, because then his whole stupid cartoon version of evolution falls apart. So he blusters and waves his arms and tosses out diversions, hopes no one will notice.

I agree, the canal analogy wasn't a good one. Taking the analogies too far takes the focus off of the complexity within living organisms.

Evolutionists seem to have an all or nothing approach to discussing genetic change. Evolutionists have made a huge assumption that little genetic changes can continue to accumulate directionally to account for all living organisms. Water erosion is not evidence for biological evolution. Saying, just because water does such and such is not evidence for biological evolution.

By quantifying the amount of change over time that we observe, we can see if biological change follows a pattern that is unbounded and directional or not. Evolutionists must quantify their observations and accurately interpret what they see and not equate what they think could happen with what they actually observe happening.

It can not be an automatic assumption. Live reproduces with amazing fidelity and error correction (as the video above describes). Are evolutionary mechanisms capable of overcoming that amazing fidelity? What I'm asking evolutionists to do is to quantify unbounded and directional change by observational evidence and not just speculate about it or give their interpretation of events that happened 100 million years ago. Experts are still trying to figure out exactly what happened during the assination of President JFK 50 years ago and they have video tape! Are we to assume that evolutionists have an accurate interpretation of something that happened 100 million years ago?

This is why I believe that plotting the pattern of observed change over time is more helpful than speculating about distinct boundaries vs evolution. It quantifies the observations and brings it back into the realm of the scientific method. It should go without saying within this group of readers to know that even the best scientists in history who were certain about their hypothesis turned out to be just flat out wrong.

Regarding ring species, from what I can see, all of the animals in the ring are still part of the same species, but subspecies. It doesn't look like this is a clear case of speciation. Furthermore, reproduction is probably just a preference (especially with the Warblers). I haven't found any research that tells us this or not.

It is kind of ironic for evolutionists to use a "RING" as an example of evolution since a "ring" is a bounded pattern! LOL

Water erosion is not evidence for biological evolution. Saying, just because water does such and such is not evidence for biological evolution.

No one ever argued that water erosion is evidence for biological evolution. Damn but you're an idiot.

By quantifying the amount of change over time that we observe, we can see if biological change follows a pattern that is unbounded and directional or not. Evolutionists must quantify their observations and accurately interpret what they see and not equate what they think could happen with what they actually observe happening.

Once again the idiot demands to see millions of years worth of change happening in a few weeks in the lab.

It can not be an automatic assumption.

It's not you idiot. It's based on several hundred years' worth of positive evidence.

Live reproduces with amazing fidelity and error correction (as the video above describes). Are evolutionary mechanisms capable of overcoming that amazing fidelity?

What I'm asking evolutionists to do is to quantify unbounded and directional change by observational evidence and not just speculate about it or give their interpretation of events that happened 100 million years ago.

Why do you limit science to just real time observations? We have over 3 billion years worth of fossil data you need to account for idiot. In science you don't get to ignore huge amounts of data just because you don't like the ramifications.

Are we to assume that evolutionists have an accurate interpretation of something that happened 100 million years ago?

We have an interpretation that explain all the evidence in a clear, consilient manner. You're too much of a coward to even offer an alternative one.

This is why I believe that plotting the pattern of observed change over time is more helpful than speculating about distinct boundaries vs evolution.

Regarding ring species, from what I can see, all of the animals in the ring are still part of the same species, but subspecies. It doesn't look like this is a clear case of speciation. Furthermore, reproduction is probably just a preference (especially with the Warblers). I haven't found any research that tells us this or not.

Yes you have you idiot. You just ignored it, just like you ignore all scientific evidence you can't explain. That's because you're an idiot.

There is no font anti aliasing problem. You see conversion and compression artifacts. MS Publisher file was converted from original to jpg than to png and than I decided to enlarge the picture. Publisher is quirky, too; sometimes it refuses to connect line to a box.

Scientists described the ribosome process with words; I just translated words into a map. Now you don’t have to imagine the process, you can see it. That’s all. As a setup it is amazing but functionally it is repetitive and mindless. Template comes in, protein comes out. Again and again. My interpretation is that this could be a nano machine. What is your interpretation?

Yes there is also initiator tRNA which sets up the reading frame.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014579309009600

Mea culpa, didn't read it yet.

What really bugs me is in footnote 4 (btw that’s where my article ends). How ribosome’s A site attracts correct tRNA from the mess in front of it? Maybe there is a pre alignment of aminoacyl tRNAs to mRNA template while all is still outside of ribosome.

Scientists described the ribosome process with words; I just translated words into a map.

Thy described them in goal-oriented terms because that's a useful device for describing systems. But useful metaphors are just that (though I don't deny many biologists may not realise they are working with a metaphor, or could have some reasons to disagree with me on this). I could send you a brief text on this if you're interested. I have a Gmail account that matches my Blogger pseudo.

As a setup it is amazing but functionally it is repetitive and mindless

Nature is choke-full of repetitive systems, and you could descrive them all in goal-oriented terms.

My interpretation is that this could be a nano machine. What is your interpretation?

I think I could call it a nano machine as well, depending on the definition of "machine". I'm not sure what kind of interpretation you're asking for.

How ribosome’s A site attracts correct tRNA from the mess in front of it? Maybe there is a pre alignment of aminoacyl tRNAs to mRNA template while all is still outside of ribosome.

It is my understanding that the ribosome doesn't "attract the correct tRNA", but that many different tRNA molecules are "tried out", until you get the porper codon-anticodon match. You can see that in your own diagram.

I understand that we need more than just erosion and weathering to explain the Grand Canyon. Geologists aren't clear exactly how the Colorado River got over the Kaibab Plateau. There are different theories about backcutting, orogeny, etc, But it isn't so simple.

He doesn't get off to a good start by saying that Darwin was the first to propose universal common descent. Which he wasn't. This muddled inaccuracy is pretty representative of the rest of the article. It makes we want to go and read an algebra book to get back to clear thinking again.

That genetic sequences don't match the tree of life based on morphology is totally missed by Theobald.

Mainly though, the hypothesis he is testing against is not common design. He compared UCA against the notion that sequence similarity (convergence, etc) might orginate by chance as opposed to universal common descent. Does he have the name of the one person in the history of the world that actually held to such a notion?

I think if we rely on random tRNA entry and then on error correction to reject misfit, ribosome would be very slow. That is why I think, just from the process analysis standpoint; there should be some queuing or sorting of tRNA.

Videos are great help but they always show tRNAs floating randomly like butterflies and then are suddenly attracted to A site. Instead, there could possibly be a loose little line up on the entry side. Just thinking loud, I didn’t read much on this issue.

You can have fun doing your own calculations with this:http://www.chem.ucsc.edu/~wgscott/courses/chem200c_save/final_presentations/Wintermeyer.pdf

Here's a snippet:The initial step in the interaction of EF-Tu¢GTP¢aa-tRNA with the ribosome is rapid, to form a kinetically labile initial complex (21, 22). At about 10^8 M^(-1)s^(-1)(20 °C), the value for k1 is unusually high, compared to typical second-order rate constants of 10^5–10^7 M^(-1)s^(-1) found for formation of other macromolecular complexes.

(My emphasis.)

----------

Videos are great help but they always show tRNAs floating randomly like butterflies and then are suddenly attracted to A site. Instead, there could possibly be a loose little line up on the entry side.

The problem is that videos are greatly simplified and slowed down. Chemistry is not easy to visualise.

"Hybridization in the south of the ring between the unblotched E. e. eschscholtzii and the blotched E. e. klauberi is RARE or,at ONE site, nonexistent, SUGGESTING complete species formation "(Wake et al. 1986, 1989).

--

So hybridization between the non mating Ensatina is rare, but possible. Apparently at one site it hasn't been observed, but at others it has. They think that at this one site the data suggests a species formation.

--

Once again the ball starts rolling but stops short of showing any empirical observation of any substantial directional change. It certainly falls way short of showing a unbounded change. Certainly if biologists had solid evidence for a speciation formation we would see something more than a subspecies naming convention going on within the ring species.

--

I'm not even claiming that it is always at the species level that change is bounded... but it would sure be helpful to at least see a clear cut and solid example of a genuine speciation event that is beyond speculation.

What I'm claiming is that when the data is plotted out over time t+n... there is not an observation of unbounded and directional change. Some animals have very short generations and lifecycles so making excuses that there isn't enough time to observe the change is an excuse. The changes that we do see happening occur quite rapidly... bird beaks, peppered moths, etc. None of them demonstrate evolution, only bounded change that diverges and merges with no net directional gain over time. Again, what "could happen" is not evidence, and using water erosion to justify what "could happen" is not evidence for biological evolution either.

You may be interested in knowing that your motion of variation around a mean was used by Fleeming Jenkin, a contemporary of Darwin, and an engineer. He caused Darwin to lose a lot of sleep. There's a website someplace where you can find his article.

You may be interested in knowing that your motion of variation around a mean was used by Fleeming Jenkin, a contemporary of Darwin, and an engineer. He caused Darwin to lose a lot of sleep. There's a website someplace where you can find his article.

LOL! Good one PaV. Post to an article written 145 years ago, in 1867. That sure has relevance to the modern ToE and all the additional information about the process we know today.

Here is a neat little video clip that I wish was a bit longer (they say a longer one is in the works):

The Flow – Resonance Film – videoDescription: The Flow, from inside a cell, looks at the supervening layers of reality that we can observe, from quarks to nucleons to atoms and beyond. The deeper we go into the foundations of reality the more it loses its form, eventually becoming a pure mathematical conception.http://vimeo.com/groups/7286/videos/25430131

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/